School district business is our expertise. With more than 30 attorneys dedicated to advising public agencies on the complex array of issues encountered while conducting their operations, Lozano Smith is prepared to share our knowledge gained in preparing thousands of contracts and helping school districts build hundreds of facilities. The business of schools is vast - from daily vendor contracts, to budgeting and revenue generation, our attorneys routinely advise on and advocate for school districts. Equally, Lozano Smith provides counsel and support on all aspects of real property and facilities issues. When a novel issue presents itself, we work closely with our clients to develop creative, efficient and effective solutions. And, if a contract is challenged or a construction project goes awry, our litigation team has a proven track record of success.

Lozano Smith Facilities and Business Practice Group specializes in:

Business

  • Budgeting Issues, Funding Disputes & Audit Appeals
  • Procurement of Supplies and Services
  • Contract Development and Review
  • Energy Issues
  • Public Finance including Bond Counsel Services
  • Technology Procurement and Contracting

Facilities

  • Bidding, Bid Challenges and Alternative Project Delivery
  • Selecting and Contracting with Construction Professionals
  • Construction Contract Development and Administration
  • Prevailing Wage and Project Labor Agreements
  • Construction Advice & Litigation
  • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Compliance
  • Developer Fees and School Facilities Mitigation
  • Prop. 39 Procurement and Contracting
  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
  • State Funding and the School Facilities Program
  • Joint Facilities Use

Real Property

  • Land Acquisition - Purchase and Exchange
  • Due Diligence Issues including CDE Approval and Resolution of Title Exceptions
  • Eminent Domain
  • Land Use and Zoning Issues
  • Leases, Easements and Other Property Interests
  • Charter School Facilities and Prop. 39 Offers
  • Surplus Property Disposition
Sacramento, San Diego dmaruccia@lozanosmith.com
Fabiola M. Rivera Senior Counsel
James  Sanchez Senior Counsel
Fresno, Monterey jsanchez@lozanosmith.com
Fresno, Sacramento, Bakersfield jbehrens@lozanosmith.com
Travis E. Cochran Senior Counsel
Monterey, Sacramento tcochran@lozanosmith.com
Los Angeles, San Diego tsims@lozanosmith.com
Los Angeles, Mission Viejo wcurley@lozanosmith.com

State Allocation Board Adopts Developer Fee Increases For 2020

By:Harold Freiman, Kelly Rem, Peter Sumulong -

January 2020Number 9The State Allocation Board (SAB) has increased the amount of "Level 1" developer fees that school districts are authorized to collect to $4.08 per square foot of residential development and $0.66 per square foot of commercial development. The increase takes effect immediately, and may now be implemented by school districts through local action.The new rates, which the SAB approved on January 22, 2020, represent a 7.64 percent increase over the maximum amounts authorized as...

Government Code 1090 Challenges by Third Parties Clarified and Limited by California Supreme Court

By:Harold Freiman, William Curley III, Kate Holding -

January 2020Number 5The California Supreme Court has ruled that third parties (private citizens, taxpayers, watchdog groups, etc.) do not have legal standing to sue public agencies to invalidate contracts allegedly made in violation of Government Code section 1090.BackgroundGovernment Code section 1090 is a "good government" law prohibiting public officials and public employees from participating in any way in the "making" or awarding of a contract in which they hold a financial interest. The...

Court Rules that Second Contract with the Same Vendor Did Not Create a Conflict of Interest

By:Arne Sandberg -

January 2020Number 6A recent California Appellate Court ruling has determined that a public entity's award of a second contract to a construction firm did not create a conflict of interest even though it related to an earlier contract between the parties. InCalifornia Taxpayers Action Network v. Taber Construction, Inc. (2019) A145078, the First Appellate District held that the contractor's second contract with a school district did not create a conflict of interest because both contracts we...

Data Breach Notification Law Gets Updates With Important Implications

By:Devon Lincoln, James McCann -

January 2020Number 2Data breaches are all but inevitable and occur in all types of organizations. Public entities are no exception, with cyber criminals increasingly targeting the wide-range of sensitive information they maintain (e.g., student data, resident data, confidential government infrastructure data, etc.). Against the backdrop of and in response to this looming threat of cyber-attacks, Governor Newsom recently signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1130, which makes small but significan...

Appellate Court Refuses To Enforce An Indemnity Provision Included In Consultant Agreement It Considers To Be Unfair To Consultant Plaintiffs

By:Devon Lincoln, Janae Castellani -

December 2019Number 85On December 9, 2019, the Appellate Court filed its decisions inLong Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams LLC, holding that an indemnity provision included in a consultant agreement between the parties was unfair and therefore inapplicable to claims brought by the consultant, Margaret Williams, or her consultant company, Margaret Williams LLC, against the District.BackgroundIn 2006, Long Beach Unified School District prepared and entered into its standard fo...

Public Agencies Can Be Liable For Attorney’s Fees In Reverse-CPRA Actions

By:Manuel Martinez, Sophia Cohn -

December 2019Number 80The risks involved in asking a court to halt the disclosure of documents sought under a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request were just expanded to public agencies. About a year ago, we reported that a pair of court decisions held that private parties who lose in a lawsuit, to prevent government agencies from disclosing personal information, may be required to pay the requester's attorney's fees (see 2018 Client News Brief Number 35). In the recent case of City of...

New Law Continues Availability Of Design-Build Construction Delivery Method To Community College District But Also Imposes Additional Labor Requirements

By:Devon Lincoln, Travis Cochran -

December 2019Number 81While a new law ensures that community college districts may continue to utilize the design-build construction delivery method for another ten years, it also imposes additional labor requirements on all design-build projects.Design-build is a construction delivery method by which an owner retains a single entity to provide architectural, engineering, and construction services under a single contract. Design-build also allows owners to award projects on a "best value" bas...

Representative Cases

Lozano Smith was part of the team representing Los Angeles Unified School District in Williams v. State of California, a massive statewide class action involving alleged conditions in public schools including alleged inequalities in school facilities, instructional materials and teachers, particularly at underperforming schools that were already the subject of various state and federal categorical programs.
Clovis Unified School District v. Chiang (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 794. Assisted eleven school districts with invalidating audits of several state mandated cost reimbursement claims worth more than $30 million, based upon the use of invalid, underground auditing documentation rule by the State Controller’s Office. The firm was later able to receive an award of $240,000 from the superior court for fees and costs incurred in the litigation efforts, largely offsetting the school districts’ legal costs in the case.
Oak Grove Elementary School District v. George W. Putris, as Tax Collector for the County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 114CV261473. Represented the District in a complex matter related to a parcel tax authorized by the District's Board and approved by voters in 1991. The District returned to the voters every four years to re-obtain approval to increase the appropriations limit to spend tax revenues, but uncertainty loomed in 2014 regarding whether the District still had authority to collect taxes in 2014 after not needing to increase the annual appropriations limit that same year. The County Tax Collector was unclear whether it still had the authority to collect the taxes, therefore leading to Lozano Smith filing a lawsuit on behalf of the District seeking a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the County Tax Collector to collect parcel taxes. The lawsuit resulted in a stipulated judgment issuing a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Tax Collector to collect the parcel tax.
Morgan Hill Unified School District v. Minter & Fahy Construction Company, Inc. et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. CV772368 (2002-2003). As part of a three week jury trial, successfully represented the school district against contractor and pipe manufacturer arising from underground fuel storage tank that leaked, and obtained judgment in excess of $2 million including interest and attorney’s fees. *Case handled by a current Lozano Smith attorney prior to their employment at Lozano Smith.
Modtech Holdings v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District. On two separate elementary school projects totaling $4 million, the District withheld substantial sums to cover damages caused the contractor. One project under the control of the contractor had a fire, with the contractor refusing to compensate the District. The other project suffered construction deficiencies in the stucco and roof. The contractor sued for improper withholding and the District cross-complained for additional damages, resulting in a $1 million dispute. After discovery and expert investigation revealed additional claims for the District, the case resolved very favorably for the District a few months short of trial.
R. Baker, Inc. v. Coast Unified School District. A school district was subject to multi-million dollar design, delay and defect claims related to construction of a new elementary school located in the Coastal Zone. The project also suffered from an inadequate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), thus causing the school district to be fined in excess of $300,000. The litigation settled favorably for the District at mediation.
Mountain Cascade v. Santa Clara Valley Water District. The District entered a contract with the plaintiff to install a recycled water pipeline. As part of the original plans and specifications, the contract also called for the additional installation of fiber optic conduits. However, after award the District deleted the fiber optic work from the project since the bid on that line item was excessive. The District then added back a small portion of the fiber optic work that was within the budget. The contractor sued the District for lost profits based on the deleted work. Our attorney won summary judgment for the District based on the broad right to add and delete work, and successfully defended the decision on appeal.
Pajaro Valley USD v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., et al. Due to a combination of construction and architectural roof design defects, a new district school was infected with mold throughout its buildings. Lozano Smith attorneys successfully represented the school district in recovering in excess of $3 million for remedial efforts and new construction from litigation prosecuted against the general contractor, architect, and insurer on the district insurance risk policy.
Teichert Construction v. City of Stockton, et al. During a $15 million dual grade separation project, the contractor and one of its subcontractors submitted claims of more than $3 million based on delay. Despite many issues of delay caused by utilities and railroad companies, the case settled favorably at pre-discovery mediation for under $1 million despite a significant number of delay days for which the City had to take responsibility.
Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262. Lozano Smith successfully argued, in a case of first impression, that the geographic and site limitations of the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code, § 47600 et seq.) are applicable to all charter schools, including “nonclassroom-based” programs.